↓ Skip to main content

Dissociating What and When of Intentional Actions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dissociating What and When of Intentional Actions
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2009
DOI 10.3389/neuro.09.003.2009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronika Krieghoff, Marcel Brass, Wolfgang Prinz, Florian Waszak

Abstract

Recent brain imaging research revealed that internally guided actions involve the frontomedian wall, in particular the preSMA and the rostral cingulate zone (RCZ). However, a systematic decomposition of different components of intentional action is still lacking. We propose a new paradigm to dissociate two components of internally guided behavior: Which action to perform (selection component) and when to perform the action (timing component). Our results suggest a neuro-functional dissociation of intentional action timing and intentional action selection. While the RCZ is more strongly activated for the selection component, a part of the superior medial frontal gyrus is more strongly activated for the timing component. However, in a post hoc conducted signal strength analysis we did also observe an interaction between action timing and action selection, indicating that decisional processes concerning action timing and action selection are not completely dissociated but interdependent. Altogether this study challenges the idea of a unitary system supporting voluntary action and instead suggests the existence of different neuroanatomically dissociable subfunctions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Belgium 3 2%
France 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 124 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 21%
Student > Master 14 10%
Professor 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 9 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 49%
Neuroscience 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 16 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,863,964
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,360
of 7,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,258
of 109,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them